Thursday, June 24, 2010

the "BRAAAAP" sound should not be coming from Mr. Hat's head, it should be coming from the airhorn.

no one says "I don't mean to toot my own horn" for real anymore, it's like "a whale of a good time" in that regard. Yes, it's annoying, but luckily: it doesn't happen

pretend that the last panel is not in this comic. It is so much better that way! The last panel tells you nothing - yes, it's an air horn, but we knew that. Yes, he was happy to get to use it for that moment. But we knew that. As it is, it makes the comic look like some kind of weird advertisement for airhorns, and I just thing; What? Why? Why not just show us a funny scene? Why force it into a random context? In this way, it's a lot like comic 456.

I complain about the lack of context a lot in xkcd, but in this case the mere presence of Mr. Hat provides enough. We know what he's like just by seeing him - he's the only character this is true for (because he is the only character). That's enough, in this case.

the sudden shift to ad tagline strikes me as something thought of to make this comic more of a joke in the regular sense, almost like a sketch comedy ad. Like, I'm not confident with the joke I've written, I'm going to tag on an unrelated one just in case.

I once had a teacher who talked about tooting his own horn from time to time, though he always pronounced it "touting," to my amusement.

As for today's comic: am I REALLY the only one who finds this velociraptor obsession highly irritating? And here's why: Dude--they were NOT LARGE DINOSAURS--NOTHING like they are in Jurassic Park. They were dog-sized, more or less. The only reason the movie used them--instead of the more appropriately-sized and legitimately alarming deinonychus--is because the name sounds cooler. You'd think someone who prides himself on being all geeky and stuff would want to AVOID accepting unscientific things like this at face value. That's all I'm saying.

I personally enjoyed 757 a little bit. I think I would have prefered it if it hadn't been a notoriously snarky character doing it. As undefined as beret guy is, he has proven himself to be guileless and it would have been an unexpected surprise (is there any other kind?) if he had done this.

And, I don't know if people actually do say "toot my own horn," but I think that Randall actually tackled that by saying that you'll only hear it a few times in your life.

758 has to be the most uninspired thing Randall has ever produced. I'm actually baffled at how boring it is. Stuff like 752 is prepostorously bad, but even there I can sort of see how Randall had a concept in his head that he thought was interesting, despite being wrong and completely failing to turn it into a comic. But this one... did he -really- think "Jurassic Park is cool... small dinosaurs?" and call it a day?

I am pretty sure the scientists at Jurassic Park would want dinosaurs big enough to inspire awe and fear. I mean, the idea is that it's a zoo/safari. Unless they have giant bubbles like in the meerkat enclosure, it's just not going to attract the punters.

As GeoX points out, this is why the movie took creative license and enlarged the raptors in the first place.

Firstly, ten to fifteen people are killed every year by dogs in the US alone, and dogs dont even prey on humans. Being only "dog-sized" does not mean an animal is harmless.

Secondly, the changes _Jurassic Park_ made to the "raptor" (ie, velociraptor), and the reasons for those changes, are well-documented; arguably, what they portrayed was not a "raptor" at all. Therefore, it is meaningless to comment upon its size. Its whatever size the film wanted it to be!

Thirdly, nothing herein should be construed as meaning that any specific XKCD, or XKCD in general, is not shit.

Apologies for being rather unimaginatively meta here but I don't want to be confused with some of the other anonymous's and I'd also prefer not to give any sort of personal details away like my random internet name to people who'd post things like "The GoatKCD version is so much better".

Furthermore I'm filled with scorn for all who post comments here including myself. Where are the legions of XKCD fanboys the contributors occasionally refers to? Why aren't they spamming this page? Why is everyone here agreeing with each other? It actually makes me just a little bit sick.

Anyway Carl I must say I unfortunately agree with the arguments in this post more than those canvassed in others. That last frame really didn't do the comic any favours. However I think you're nitpicking with the "no one says I don't mean to toot my own horn" point. It's a well known phrase, so the punny effect of this comic is not spoiled and by having the hatless guy say it simply makes him look like more of a ponce. Thus adding to the gratification of seeing him being blown away by an air horn... well I got some gratification out of it, I can't speak for others especially here.

But I shouldn't blame you for nitpicking Carl, having to take time out of your day to respond to these endless "sucky" comics. It must be hard to maintain such a high standard of critiquing from week to week. I guess the idea was you'd be swapping places in your munroe gangbanging but it doesn't look like the other contributors have posted for a while. Well soldier on Carl and the others will have to settle for sloppy seconds; provided you don't run out of... ideas before they get back.

But sometimes the goatkcd comic IS much better. Seriously, have you gone through the archive? Some of them are genius!

http://goatkcd.com/535/

"Furthermore I'm filled with scorn for all who post comments here including myself. Where are the legions of XKCD fanboys the contributors occasionally refers to? Why aren't they spamming this page? Why is everyone here agreeing with each other? It actually makes me just a little bit sick."

Formerly unimaginative meta, I have found me a name!@ Anonymous (0)No, it's never better. I actually went there when I first saw that post thinking it'd be humorous pictures of goats in XKCD comics. Last time I ever drink and google-search. How could I be so stupid?Also just because it's called XKCD sucks doesn't mean people have to agree with everything said here.@ Anonymous (1)Hey I didn't type "XKCD sucks" into google either, I got linked here from somewhere. Surely it's conceivable that if there's so many fanboys; at least one of them will have stumbled across here and in his rage decided to bring along some friends.Bring it on Rob.

@ FredMy BMI is 19 so in no way am I a legion of anything. Also where I live it isn't 3:49 AM, that timestamp makes me look a little sad.----Finally why does everyone here just assume I like XKCD? I mean I do but I never explicitly said so. My main point was a very brief critique of Carl's critique combined with some homosexual imagery due to my recent unfortunate run in with "GoatKCD.com".

Aside from which, without the alt-text (and the third panel, and the slight laziness in where the lines are drawn to distinguish talking from noisemaking) it could pass for a timeless airhorn joke. Although I usually think of an airhorn as more of a "HONK" noise.

Conversely, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought "oh great another Jurassic Park namedrop" followed by "wait, genes don't really work that way, do they?" on today's comic.

I never liked the whole velociraptor motif myself; it always struck me as a little on the precious side. It's like a gap-toothed redhead five year old boy with freckles, looking up with a wide grin at his mom, saying that he loves her "scabhetti", and that he hopes the laundry monster doesn't come from his bedroom closet that night to eat him in his pyjamas.

"Hey I didn't type "XKCD sucks" into google either, I got linked here from somewhere. Surely it's conceivable that if there's so many fanboys; at least one of them will have stumbled across here and in his rage decided to bring along some friends.Bring it on Rob."

we get XKCD fanboys in pretty much every comment thread. usually they don't come with friends, for some reason, but they're pretty frequent on their own. usually they give up after at most a comment war or two.

not sure why they don't come in bunches, but in my experience on the internet, it takes a special kind of devotion to actively participate in a comment thread on a forum where you're vastly outnumbered.

see, we can tag-team them. most of the time, when a cuddlefish posts his complaint there's half a dozen people tearing him apart (at least). usually they only come back once or twice to defend themselves, if that.

cuddlefish, in contrast, don't have that advantage. even if they come in numbers they're outnumbered in the end. they have no organization to speak of. as such they are easily thwarted.

"Finally why does everyone here just assume I like XKCD? I mean I do but I never explicitly said so. My main point was a very brief critique of Carl's critique combined with some homosexual imagery due to my recent unfortunate run in with "GoatKCD.com"."

XKCD fans are pretty obvious. I'm sure it would be possible to pretend not to like it if you wanted to, but I'm not sure what the point is.

Firstly, ten to fifteen people are killed every year by dogs in the US alone, and dogs dont even prey on humans. Being only "dog-sized" does not mean an animal is harmless.

Yeah, if the US was populated by millions of bipedal lizards, and a minuscule fraction of them killed a few people--in spite of the species on the whole being quite friendly--I don't think they'd exactly inspire terror, would they?

@ RobThe reason I invoked you was because someone said you'd come along to fight his battles for him or something along those lines.I do like XKCD however I never for a second pretended not to. In my first post I just never said I did like it and in my second one I went out and said I did. I don't even see why my stance on XKCD should be that much of an issue, I had a genuine criticism about Carl's post which didn't really involve the word "XKCD". I just said that he was nitpicking.

After all I'm not here to try and make anybody like XKCD. I mean it's pretty subjective whether or not you like something. (ah, yes I read your rants, bear with me). However the criticism you guys do is (mostly) objective and as such I'm quite happy to try and pick it apart.

@ Professional MoleFirstly; it's "I am Painis Cupcake" thank you very much. Secondly the name is not a troll name but a real thing, look it up. It's safe for work, or at least it should be.

Lastly when are you guys going to post something about the new XKCD comic that came out? I mean I know the thread is abuzz with complaints about how genetics doesn't work like that and how they hate raptor jokes but I don't think that's an adequate substitute for one of your fine critiques.Also the way this site handles comments is horrible.

"I do like XKCD however I never for a second pretended not to. In my first post I just never said I did like it and in my second one I went out and said I did. I don't even see why my stance on XKCD should be that much of an issue, I had a genuine criticism about Carl's post which didn't really involve the word "XKCD". I just said that he was nitpicking."

well, there's your problem. you pretty much have to actively pretend to dislike XKCD in order to not be obvious as an XKCD fan. it's a matter of tone. it has nothing to do with express statements, but the way you come off always gives it away.

"I mean it's pretty subjective whether or not you like something. (ah, yes I read your rants, bear with me). However the criticism you guys do is (mostly) objective and as such I'm quite happy to try and pick it apart."

FINALLY SOMEBODY GETS IT. Jesus Fucking Christ, that took forever.

my advice: avoid saying "you're nitpicking." that's pretty much a matter of opinion--one man's insignificant detail is another man's big fucking deal. pick the reviews apart all you like. if you can stay away from being a worthless fuck then you'll do fine. we like talking to intelligent XKCD supporters.

"Lastly when are you guys going to post something about the new XKCD comic that came out? I mean I know the thread is abuzz with complaints about how genetics doesn't work like that and how they hate raptor jokes but I don't think that's an adequate substitute for one of your fine critiques."

Carl basically posts a few minutes before the new comic. I don't know why. when it is Rob Week they go up on time.

@ RobWhat exactly about my tone gave it away? Was it me linking you to gangbanging? I guess that wouldn't put me in the "I like XKCD sucks" camp. Well I'll tone it down from here on out, I expected less of this site to be honest. By that I mean more flames punctuated with swearwords.

Anyway when I said nitpicking that was just the conclusion of my line of reasoning. I did have some (in my opinion) valid points about how whether or not people still say "I don't want to toot my own horn" is irrelevant. Since it's a well known saying people can still see the pun etc.

Anyway I look forward to picking at the next critique which will hopefully provide me with more ammunition that this one did.

P.S: Hah! Thank you rob_is_fat! A potent reminder that this is in fact the internet and not some strange virtual convent where people are all harmonious in their dislike of Munroe.

this was your first paragraph: "Apologies for being rather unimaginatively meta here but I don't want to be confused with some of the other anonymous's and I'd also prefer not to give any sort of personal details away like my random internet name to people who'd post things like "The GoatKCD version is so much better"."

your name was "XKCD Sucks Sucks." you were not trying to be very stealthy about it. given that most of the people on here complaining about the blog are XKCD fans (especially the ones that claim they also hate XKCD), it was not an unreasonable assumption to make.

in fairness we do have our fair amount of profanity-laced flamewars, but I reserve that for people who are being dumbasses.

First of all, let's get something straight. Whoever created this website is an asshole. I mean, seriously, your entire site is based on nothing more than insulting another site. You're like the antichrist, except you're the anti-xkcd. Jeez. Get a life.

The problem with XKCD sucks isn't that they're based on criticism of another site's work. The fact is that 90% of the time, XKCD deserves the criticism. The problem I have with xkcdsucks is that it adds nothing of its own. There's no humor here, no attempt to make the criticism interesting on it's own. It's just vitriol. Compare almost any XKCD suck post with someone like the Nostalgia critic who actually works to add some entertainment value to his critiques. The last time xkcdsucks tried something new, interesting or creative was around Christmas time (I think) when someone posed a cat doing the revue of the day's comic. Now that was actually funny on it's own and still managed to make the pertinent points about the deficiencies of Randall's work. Why can't we have more of that?

I kinda wonder how many letters the creators of MST3K got telling them they were assholes whose show was based on nothing more than insulting movies and that they needed to get a life. I've certainly never seen that sort of sentiment expressed on the Internet. Quite the contrary, most nerds seem to love MST3K. What could the difference be? Is it because their objects of mockery are things no one likes/remembers? To me, that just makes them bigger assholes! I mean, think about it. For ever comment on this site you can probably find 10 people who love XKCD and will link it at every possible opportunity to talk about how clever it is, while most of the shows MST3K mocked, most people aren't even familiar with except in the context of a show making fun of them! Who's the bigger asshole now, hmm?

Wow, you hate the comic and took a blogging where you break the comics, piece by piece and analyze them 2 hours/session, posting it on the internet? If I were you, I'd try working more on getting myself laid, or at least, porn. I'm not the usual xkcd fan, I read lots of webcomics, and I only take the humor part. Rarely(perhaps never) I squeeze my brain half-juice just trying to defame someone on the internet by attacking his SENTENCE STRUCTURE.

But seriously--he's not the best example to bring in during a criticism of the site for not bringing anything extra to its critique. And he's been doing videos for a few years now--it'd be nice if he could scrape together a few bucks for a mini acting course. Just sayin'. Or at least just glance on over at Spoony's videos. He's not great, but he's A LOT less annoying.

...okay, seriously, calling people by names starting with "I am" don't make it for me. Must be the impression of god complex, I don't know...

But anyway, I did google it now and what I found was amusing. Yes, there is SFW content, but there's also an Urban Dictionary page and some comment by the author of the video regarding the obvious homophone to that word, so don't blame for thinking every ounce you had of seriousness added to nothing.

used to like xkcd cuz the earlier comics were good but until finding this handy-dandy blog it had never really sunk in that xkcd is REALLY GENUINELY MEDIOCRE at best usually... kudos for helping me see the light haha.

actually the whole "nerd culture" thing bothers me sometimes, it seems like there are as many posers in nerd culture as in any other culture... and it bothers me. xkcd's jokes aren't that hard to understand, even if you DON'T know what they are talking about (which most people who finished high school do at least most of the time) -- a few of the comics are still funny/interesting or whatever but this strip has just gotten so meh for me. cool blog.

"And yet, when the genetic traits of a minority group include a neurological configuration that differs from the majority population to any noticeable extent, society’s tolerance for diversity goes out the window."That is because those differences actually have some sort of impact in every field where there exists prejudice. Or ok, not necessarily, but I am just about certain it mostly means those. Like hey, it is totally bigoted to suggest a sociopathic serial killer is more dangerous than a neurotypical who commited a single crime of passion, almost as bad as suggesting that someone with severe learning disabilities might be an inferior mechanic.I mean really it's a bit akin to saying it's racist to refuse a white guy who wants to play MLK in your movie.

Although this doesn't stop anti-discrimination laws from making no sense a lot of the time.

@ScottMcTony: so are you born retarded or was it an accident from your youth? It's astounding, your grasp on the English language should be studied and publicised as a warning to others. How does his second sentence in any way negate his later claim that the swearing and screaming is done with comedic intent?

No Fred I mean his second sentence said that he makes actual jokes and the whole comment generally suggested that the swearing and screaming is just a... method of delivery.That the actual jokes he makes are of extremely debatable quality I do not contest.

Now let's be fair to the poor aspergic people (this is the best word ever and I will be praised as a brilliant linguist), only the half or so that are getting closer to the border between high functioning and low are really all that annoying for it.

@ Professional MoleI don't blame you, I'm just glad you understand. Now I don't see why you can't refer to me by my proper moniker, I mean it's not like you have to say it out loud. Just type it. Capitalise it if it makes you feel better. If you must abbreviate then just call me cupcake, it makes me feel warm inside and it makes more sense than calling someone Painis.

Also I don't know where you're getting this god complex stuff from. In case you haven't noticed I'm not just trolling here so you can drop the crap.

If you don't like the Nostalgia Critic, then fine. Someone mentioned MST3K as another good example of what I'm talking about. The point in, the author of this blog seems to think he's the Roger Ebert of webcomics (if you don't like Roger Ebert for some reason insert the name of some other film critic. I don't care). XKCD doesn't deserve this kind of in-depth criticism. Stop trying to explain why the joke isn't funny. We don't need to know why it isn't funny. We can look at it and tell that it isn't funny. This blog is the equivalent of having an art critic explain why a first grader's finger-painting isn't aesthetically balanced in light of the work of the early neo-impressionist movement. You may eventually make your point, but given the low level of intelligence someone would have to have to think XKCD was funny in the first place, what would have been the point?

Oh God, asperger's pride. The last thing people with a severe social disorder should be doing is banding together and talking to each other. Especially if the result is believing that everyone else is responsible for their failures. It's like a person in a wheelchair sitting at the bottom of a staircase and swearing at it instead of trying to find an elevator.

@ Proffesor MoleIs this a real thing you are worried about? You think people who are truly intelligent can't figure out that something isn't funny on their own? Do you think that if this blog did not exists that intelligent people would say to themselves "Clearly, the fact that there is not daily point by point refutation of this comic's effectiveness means that it must be a work of genuis. After all did not the very creator of the aforesaid work claim that his comic was a work of genius? Why yes he did. Clearly this must be funny."?This. Does. Not. HappenYou do not need to explain why XKCD is bad to intelligent people any more than you need to explain why Twilight is subpar to English majors. We get it. Really.Please understand, I'm not trying to say this blog shouldn't exist at all; I'm only saying maybe you should try not to make it so serious. Shake things up. Have a some fun with this. After all, the bar has been set pretty low already; it shouldn't be too hard to be more entertaining than Randall.

"You do not need to explain why XKCD is bad to intelligent people any more than you need to explain why Twilight is subpar to English majors. We get it. Really."

congratulations! with one sentence you have successfully said that all criticism is inherently worthless. intelligent people and experts in the field don't need to ever hear an outside opinion, because they're intelligent and thus always right about everything!

I can think of all sorts of impossible things before lunch that you may laugh at merely because of their absurdity. That doesn't mean that if I draw to people talking nonchalantly about them, it'll be something other than "totally unfunny"

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.